ERIC ED578734: Dilemmas of Prescriptive Practices and Perceived Alignment in Program Implementation

2017·0.44 MB·English

by  ERIC

Peabody Journal of Education
ISSN: 0161-956X (Print) 1532-7930 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hpje20
Dilemmas of Prescriptive Practices and Perceived
Alignment in Program Implementation
Mollie Rubin, Susan Kemper Patrick & Ellen B. Goldring
To cite this article: Mollie Rubin, Susan Kemper Patrick & Ellen B. Goldring (2017) Dilemmas of
Prescriptive Practices and Perceived Alignment in Program Implementation, Peabody Journal of
Education, 92:5, 609-626, DOI: 10.1080/0161956X.2017.1368646
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2017.1368646
Accepted author version posted online: 21
Aug 2017.
Published online: 21 Aug 2017.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 31
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hpje20
Download by: [Vanderbilt University Library] Date: 16 October 2017, At: 13:12
PEABODYJOURNALOFEDUCATION,92:609–626,2017
Copyright(cid:2)CTaylor&FrancisGroup,LLC
ISSN:0161-956Xprint/1532-7930online
DOI:10.1080/0161956X.2017.1368646
Dilemmas of Prescriptive Practices and Perceived
Alignment in Program Implementation
MollieRubin,SusanKemperPatrick,andEllenB.Goldring
7 VanderbiltUniversity
1
0
2
r
e
b
o
ct Thispaperstudiestheearlyimplementationofaschoolimprovementeffortintwohighschools.We
O
examine what explains variation in the teacher adoption of program practices. Our findings high-
6
1 lightthetensionbetweenencouragingimmediateadoptionofprogrampracticesandthelongerterm
2
1 goalsofschoolwideculturechange.Wefindthathighlystructuredpracticesandthosethatareal-
3: readyalignedwithteachers’extantbeliefsandclassroompracticescanbeimplementedwithlittle
1
at preexistingcapacity.Theseconditionscouldalsoleadtomoreconsistentandquickerinitialadop-
y] tion.However,thistypeofimplementationmightnotencouragesufficientunderstandingofprogram
r
a goalsandmayinhibitthediffusionofpracticesintotheschoolculture.Findingshighlightdilemmas
r
b
Li associatedwithprogrampracticeswhenthegoalistobringeducationalreformstoscale.
y
sit
r
e
v DILEMMASINTHEIMPLEMENTATIONOFASCHOOL
ni
U IMPROVEMENTREFORM
bilt
er Teachersaretheprimaryimplementersofmostschoolimprovementefforts.Assuch,thedegree
d
n to which teachers adopt specific program practices is critical to the long-term success of these
a
V programs. Extensive research indicates that teachers are not passive participants in the imple-
[
y mentationprocess;instead,teachersplayacrucialroleindetermininghowaprogram’spractices
b
d areunderstood,interpreted,andenactedintheirschool(McLaughlin,1976;Spillane,Reiser,&
e
d
a Reimer,2002;Weatherley&Lipsky,1977).Howschoolimprovement effortsareimplemented
o
nl maydependonthecharacteristicsofboththeprogrampracticesthemselvesandoftheteachers
w
o andschoolsimplementingthem(Coburn,2001;Cohen&Ball,1990;Desimone,2002).
D
Much of the knowledge base on school-level implementation focuses on how teachers re-
spondwhenpresentedwithnewstateorfederalpolicy,orspecificexternallydevelopedreform
programs,andsuggeststhatimprovement effortsarerarelysuccessful“atscale”(Cohen-Vogel
etal.,2014;Datnow,2005;Elias,Zins,Graczyk,&Weissberg,2003).Highlightingthestruggle
ofthesepolicy-driveneffortstomeaningfullyinfluencetheteachingandlearningthatoccursin
schools,Coburn(2003)arguesthatimprovementeffortsshouldreconceptualizescaletocomprise
fourinterrelatedfactors:(a)depthofchange,(b)sustainability,(c)spread,and(d)shiftinreform
CorrespondenceshouldbesenttoMollieRubin,VanderbiltUniversity,PMB414,230AppletonPlace,Nashville,TN
37203.E-mail:[e-mail]
610 M.RUBIN,S.KEMPERPATRICK,ANDE.B.GOLDRING
ownership to practitioners. In this analysis, we consider the initial stages of a high school im-
provementeffortthatwasdesignedwithscaleinmind.Indoingso,wehighlighttheimplications
oftheteachers’earlyexperienceswithprogrampracticestowardthegoalofachieving“deepand
consequentialchangeinclassroompractice”(Coburn,2003,p.4).
Weexaminetheearlystagesofimplementationofre-culturingprogramsschoolwidethatwere
designed with scale in mind through a continuous improvement approach in two urban high
schools. Unlike the replication model in which schools try to duplicate the success of an ex-
ternallydevelopedprogram,acontinuousimprovementapproachemphasizestheimportanceof
localcontextandadaptation.Inthisapproach,educators,researchers,andexternalreformorga-
nizations work together to identify areas for school improvement, design school practices with
17 thoseareasinmind,andcontinuallytestandimprovethosepracticesattheschoollevel(Bryk,
0
2 Gomez,&Grunow,2011;Cohen,Peurach,Glazer,Gates,&Goldin,2013;Cohen-Vogeletal.,
r
e 2014).Becausemanydecisionsregardingprogramdesignandimplementationaremadelocally
b
o
ct within individual schools, this approach seeks to minimize the pitfalls associated with scaling
O
externallydevelopedprograms.
6
1 The core components of this school improvement program were determined at the district
2
1 levelbyateamofresearchers,curriculumdevelopers,districtleaders,andteachers.School-based
3:
1 teams of teacher leaders were then tasked with designing and implementing specific practices
at at each school. Thus, the programs implemented in the two schools differed somewhat in both
]
ry design and implementation process, especially as they pertain to program structures and levels
a
br ofprescription.Thesedifferencesallowedustoanalyzethedegreetowhichprogramstructures,
Li including the degree of prescription and time available for implementation, influenced teacher
y
sit adoptionofprogrampracticeswithinthefirstfewmonthsofimplementation.Wealsoconsidered
r
e variationwithineachschooltoexplorewhysometeachersinitiallyadoptprogrampracticesand
v
ni others do not. These considerations led us to address the following research question: How do
U
bilt proEgdraumcactohrasrafcatceeriastmicysriinaflduoefnccheoeiacrelsywtehaecnheirntardoodputcioinng?anewprogramorpracticeintendedto
r
e
d improveschools.Oftentimes,thesechoicesinvolvetimelinesorschedules,whichtendtodictate
n
Va decisions.Inthispaperwetrackthefirstmonthsofprogramimplementation,andwehighlightthe
y [ tensionbetweenencouragingimmediateadoptionofprogrampracticesandthelonger-termgoals
b
d ofdeepdiffusionofnewprogrampracticesintothedailyexperienceofteachersandstudentsas
de partofanefforttowardscale.Inparticular,wefindthathighlystructuredpracticesandthosethat
a
o are already aligned with teachers’ beliefs and perspectives about teaching can be implemented
nl
w withlittlepreexistingcapacity.Suchcircumstancesmayleadtomoreconsistentandquickerinitial
o
D adoption.However,thistypeofimplementationmaynotaffordeducatorstheopportunitytofully
graspanunderstandingoftheprogramgoalsandmayinhibitthediffusionofpracticesintothe
school culture moving forward. Although increased structure and alignment might have short-
term payoffs, they could potentially hinder the quality and sustainability of implementation at
scale.
TEACHERADOPTIONOFSCHOOLREFORMS
Teachers ultimately determine the degree to which new programs or practices are carried out
within their classrooms. Numerous factors may influence whether a teacher adopts a certain
DILEMMASOFPROGRAMIMPLEMENTATION 611
practiceaspartofaschoolimprovementorreformeffort.Researchoncurricularreformsuggests
thatboththenatureandstructureofthereformitselfandcharacteristicsofteachersimplementing
thereforminfluencewhetherteachersimplementchangesintheirinstructionalpracticethatare
consistentwiththereform(Coburn,2004;Cohen&Ball,1990;Spillane,1999).Similarly,studies
oncomprehensiveschoolreformhavefoundthattheinterplaybetweenthestructureofthereform
model,localconditionsinschools,andindividualteachercharacteristicsmayinfluencewhether
or not the reform model is successfully implemented or sustained at the school level (Bodilly,
Glennan,Kerr,&Galegher,2004;Datnow,2005;Desimone,2002;Supovitz&May,2004).Re-
searchershavefoundthatanumberofcommonlyidentifiedfactorsinfluenceteacheradoptionof
schoolimprovementefforts.Webrieflyintroducefourfactors—will,priorpractice,capacity,and
17 programstructures—thatareoftencitedasinfluentialintheimplementationprocess.
0
2 Will.Teachersaremorelikelytoimplementanewpracticeiftheythinkitwillwork.Asdefined
r
e by McLaughlin (1987), “motivation and commitment (or will) reflect an implementer’s assess-
b
o
ct mentofthevalueofapolicyortheappropriatenessofastrategy”(p.172).Teachersmayreject
O
a policy idea or new practice if they feel it does not apply to their students’ needs, does not fit
6
1 withtheirstyleofinstruction,willnotleadtoimprovement,orseemsburdensomeorinappropri-
2
1 ate(Coburn,2001;Muncey&McQuillan,1996).Researchonexternallydevelopedreformshas
3:
1 noted the importance of teacher buy-in in creating conditions for successful adoption and sus-
at tainabilityofnewprograms(Bodillyetal.,2004;Desimone,2002;Nunnery,1998).However,a
]
ry beliefinthevalueofsomethingdoesnotnecessarilyhavetoprecedeitsadoption;indeed,changes
a
br inbehaviororpracticemayprecedechangesinbelief(Fullan,1985;Guskey,2002;McLaughlin,
Li 1990).Schoolimprovementeffortsmaybeabletotargetteachers’willtoadoptanewprogram
y
sit throughacombinationofpressureandsupport(McLaughlin,1987;Spillane,1999).
r
e Prior practice. Teachers have to see a need to learn about a new program and change their
v
ni practice.Spillane(1999)explains,“teachers’beliefs,dispositions,andknowledgeaboutstudents,
U
bilt sthuebijrepctramctaitcteerinanrdestpeoancsheintgo,raesfowrmellaansdtthheeiirrparbioilritpyratoctpicraec,tiincfleuiennwceaythsesiurgwgielslitnegdnbeyssretofocrhmaenrgse”
r
e
d (p. 157). In his work on mathematics reform, Spillane (1999) finds that reform ideas will get
n
Va moreattentionfromeducatorsiftheyalignwiththeirexistingideas,butthatdifferencesinprior
y [ knowledgeandpracticedonotnecessarilyexplainwillingnessandabilitytoadapttoinstructional
b
d reform.Aspartofastudyonteacherresponsetochangingpoliciesinreadinginstruction,Coburn
de (2004)identifiescongruence—“theextenttowhichthecontentofamessageaboutreadingcorre-
a
o spondsto[teachers’]preexistingworldviewsorpractices”—asakeyfactorinexplainingwhether
nl
w teachersincorporatednewmessagesintotheirinstruction(p.218).Coburnconcludesthatwhen
o
D there are higher levels of congruence between policy messages and their preexisting practices,
teachersarelesslikelytooutrightrejectthosenewmessages;however,teachersarealsounlikely
tosubstantivelychangetheirpracticeandinsteadassimilatethepolicyintowhattheyalreadydo.
Teachers develop their practices and beliefs about teaching over time, and their prior methods
influencehowtheymakesenseofnewprogramsandpolicies.Whenfacedwithnewcurriculum,
standards,orinstructionalpractices,teachersfilterthesenewideasthroughwhattheyalreadydo,
whichcanresultinamishmashofnewandoldpractices(Cohen&Ball,1990).
Capacity.Muchoftheresearchonprogramimplementationsuggeststhatlocalcapacityisa
centralfactorindeterminingthedegreeandqualityofimplementation.DurlakandDuPre(2008)
definecapacityas“thenecessarymotivationandabilitytoidentify,select,plan,implement,eval-
uate, and sustain effective interventions” (p. 335). Research on school improvement programs
612 M.RUBIN,S.KEMPERPATRICK,ANDE.B.GOLDRING
in low-performing schools indicates that contextual factors (e.g., resources, efficacious attitude
towardchange)influencethelevelofcapacityofschoolstoengageinimplementation(Datnow,
2005;Peurach,Glazer,&Lenhoff,2012;Teddlie,Stringfield,&Reynolds,2000)andthatsuffi-
cientlevels ofcapacity arecriticaltoschoolimprovement efforts(Bryk,Sebring,Allensworth,
Luppescu&Easton,2010;Spillane&Thompson,1997).Onanindividualteacherlevel,capac-
ity can be conceptualized as the knowledge and skills to enact reform as well as the ability to
takeownershipoverreformefforts(Coburn,2003;Newmann,King,&Youngs,2000).Teachers’
preparationforenactingreformpracticesmayincreasetheextenttowhichtheyimplementthose
practices(Frank,Zhao,Penuel,Ellefson,&Porter,2011)andultimatelyaffectstudentoutcomes
(Supovitz&May,2004).
17 Program structure. The nature of program practices and how they are introduced to teach-
0
2 ersmayinfluencethedegreetowhichthesepracticesareadopted.Programswithgreaterspeci-
r
e ficity and more prescription are easier to implement as intended, and these characteristics may
b
o
ct beparticularlyusefulatthebeginningoftheimplementationprocess(Coburn,2003;Peurach&
O
Glazer, 2012). More prescriptive programs can bolster initially weak capacity and help teach-
6
1 ersbuildknowledgeandunderstandingthroughexperience(Desimone,2002;Peurach&Glazer,
2
1 2012). However, teachers must have an opportunity to learn about the core elements and prac-
3:
1 ticesofaschoolimprovementprogram.Professionaldevelopmenthaslongbeenidentifiedasa
at primarymeanstobuildtheknowledgeandskillsofeducators,aswellastheorganizationalca-
]
ry pacityofschools,whenintroducingnewcurriculumorinstructionalpractices(Newmannetal.,
a
br 2000).Studieshavefoundthatteachersaremorelikelytoadoptprogramswhentheyareoffered
Li program-alignedprofessionaldevelopment,havetimetoplanforimplementation,andhaveac-
y
sit cess to technical support and resources (Cohen & Hill, 1998; Kisa & Correnti, 2014; Penuel,
r
e Fishman,Yamaguchi,&Gallagher,2007;Spillane,1999).Also,teachersaremorelikelytoem-
v
ni bracereformideasiftheyaregiventimetopracticeandanopportunitytocollaboratewiththeir
U
bilt colMleaugcuheshaosnbreefeonrmw-roitrtieenntaebdopurtactetiaccehse(rCaodhoepnti&onHainlld,1i9n9st8r;ucFtriaonnkaletparal.c,t2ic0e11in).the context of
r
e
d externallyimposedcurriculum,standards,andaccountabilityreforms.Itisnotclearthedegree
n
Va to which these findings hold for school improvement efforts in which teachers serve as both
y [ the designers and implementers of program practices. This study contributes to the gap in the
b
d literaturebyexamininghowtheactualpracticesthatteachersareaskedtodesignandimplement
de may facilitate or impede initial adoption within the context of a collaborative, research-based,
a
o andlocallydevelopedschoolimprovementprogram.Inparticular,thisstudyevaluatesthefactors
nl
w that explain variation in the teacher adoption of program practices during the initial stages of
o
D implementing a locally adapted school improvement program. Understanding the factors that
encourageandinhibitearlyadoptionhasimportantimplicationsforbringingeducationalreforms
toscale.
THECONTEXTOFTHESTUDY
Theresearchpresentedhereispartofalargermultiyearprojectthatbroughttogetherresearchers,
program developers, and practitioners to design and implement school-based re-culturing pro-
grams.Thiscollaborativeapproachutilizesprinciplesofcontinuousimprovementtodesignhigh
school reforms with the explicit goal of achieving Coburn’s four elements of scale—depth,
DILEMMASOFPROGRAMIMPLEMENTATION 613
sustainability, spread, and reform ownership (see Cohen-Vogel, Cannata, Rutledge, and Socol
(2016) for complete information on the approach). A collaborative team consisting of district-
levelpersonnel,school-basedadministratorsandteachers,researchers,andcurriculumdesigners
identifiedthreedistricthighschoolstodevelopandimplementaprogramwhosegoalwastode-
velopstudents’senseofownershipandresponsibilityfortheirlearningandoverallacademicsuc-
cess(SOAR).ThecorecomponentsoftheSOARprogramincludeddevelopinggrowthmindsets
(orabeliefinmalleableintelligence)(Dweck,2007;Yeager&Dweck,2012),problem-solving
skills,andgoalsetting.
Starting in June 2013, three school-based design teams of teachers, one representing each
school, were tasked with designing the specific program practices that would be implemented
17 attheirindividualschoolstopromotethesethreecorecomponents.Consequently,eachschool’s
0
2 designteamemergedwithsomewhatdifferentversionsoftheSOARprogram,whichwasimple-
r
e mentedatthebeginningofthe2014–2015schoolyear.Thispaperisbasedontheinitialstages
b
o
ct ofimplementationduringthefirstsemesterofschoolwideadoptionofSOAR.
O
6
1
2
1 DistrictandSchoolContexts
3:
1
at Thisreformefforttookplaceinalarge,predominantlyurbandistrictinthesouthwesternUnited
]
ry States. This school district serves over 80,000 students, who are predominantly Hispanic (ap-
a
br proximately 60%) and economically disadvantaged (approximately 75%). The district serves a
Li substantialpercentageofEnglishLanguageLearners.Althoughtheschooldistrict’sperformance
y
sit scoresonstateassessmentsarelowerthanstatewideaverages,theschooldistricthadmettheir
r
e state’saccountabilitystandardsforthefouryearspriortothe2014–2015academicyear,thefocal
v
ni year for this study. Table 1 presents demographic information for the district and the two high
U
bilt schTohoelsdwishtreircetihmaspalepmpreonxtaimtioantewlya1s5stcuodmiepdr.ehensivehighschools.Districtofficials,withthecon-
r
e
d sent of each school’s principal, selected three of these schools, which ranked toward the bot-
n
Va tom of all high schools in the district according to academic performance indicators (student
y [ achievement,studentprogress,closingperformancegaps,andpostsecondaryreadiness,gradua-
b
d tion,attendance,anddropoutrates),toparticipateintheinitialdesignandimplementationefforts.
de Though we initially started our work in three high schools, one school lagged behind the oth-
a
o ersthroughoutthedesignandimplementationprocess.Althoughtheybegantoimplementsome
nl
w SOARpracticesinthebeginningofthe2014–2015schoolyear,therewerenotsufficientprogram
o
D componentstostudy.Wethereforerestrictouranalysistothetwootherschools.
SOARatEachSchool
Asnotedabove,thedistrictdesignteamidentifiedthreecorecomponentsofSOAR:(a)teaching
about growth mindset, (b) developing a schoolwide problem-solving process, and (c) working
withstudentsongoal-settingskills.BecauseeachschoolwasaskedtotailorthedesignofSOAR
to their local context, each school design team developed their own version of SOAR. Table 2
brieflydescribesthesimilaritiesanddifferencesinhowthetwoschoolsapproachedthesethree
corecomponents.ThemostnotabledifferenceishowtheschoolsincorporatedtheSOARlessons
614 M.RUBIN,S.KEMPERPATRICK,ANDE.B.GOLDRING
TABLE1
DemographicProfileofDistrictandCaseStudySchools
Districttotals DesertGrove ForestGlen
Studentdemographics
Totalenrollment >80,000 >1,500 <1,000
Enrollmentby
race/ethnicity
PercentHispanic 60% 50% 90%
PercentAfricanAmerican 20% 20% 5%
Percentwhite 10% 30% 5%
7 Percenteconomically 75% 40% 90%
1
0 disadvantaged
2
r PercentEnglishLanguage 30% 5% 10%
e
b Learners
o
ct Teacherdemographics
O Totalnumberofteachers ∼5,000 >100 <75
6
1 Teachersbyrace/ethnicity
2 PercentHispanic 20% 10% 20%
1
3: PercentAfricanAmerican 20% 10% 10%
] at 1 PAevrgc.eynetawrshiotfeexperience 106y0e%ars 10–1820%years 12–1740%years
y
r
ra Source:Stateaccountabilitydatafromthe2014–2015academicyear.
b
Li Note.Schoolnamesarepseudonymsandhavebeenchangedforthepurposeofconfidentiality.Countsandpercentages
y areroundedtoprotectidentityofdistrictandschools.
sit
r
e
v
ni intotheschoolday.ForestGlencreatedaweeklyadvisoryperiodduringwhichteachersworked
U
bilt wcointhceapgtsrotuhpatohfa1d0b–e1e5nstduedveenlotspefrdombyththeesadmeseiggnratdeaemanadnidmoptlheemretneatecdhelerssswonitshirnelathteedstcohoSoOl.AIRn
r
de contrast,DesertGroveintegratedSOARpracticesintotheirexistingclassstructureanddidnot
n
a createaseparateclassperiodtoimplementSOARlessons.
V
[
y
b
d
de DATAANDMETHODS
a
o
nl
w WecollecteddataduringfieldresearchvisitstoschoolsinlateOctober2014.Teamsofthreere-
o
D searchersspentfourdaysineachschoolconductingin-depth,semistructuredinterviewsandfocus
groupswithteachers,administrators,students,andmembersoftheschools’designteams.Wein-
terviewed21teachersateachschoolwhowerenotpartofthedesignteams.Theseteacherswere
selectedusingconveniencesamplingwithparametersdevelopedbytheresearchersencouraging
variationacrosssubjectandgradelevelstaught.Designteammembersineachschoolrecruited
theselectedteacherstoparticipateintheinterviews.
Thepurposeofthisfirstvisitwastoexplorethestateofearlyimplementationfromtheper-
spectives of teachers. The primary data for this analysis are drawn from the 42 teacher inter-
views.Theseinterviewsweredesignedtocaptureteachers’perceptionsofSOAR,theirfeedback
on SOAR-related practices, whether or not they had been engaging in the practices, and if and
howtheyadaptedorextendeduponthespecificprogrampractices.Inaddition,interviewswith
DILEMMASOFPROGRAMIMPLEMENTATION 615
TABLE2
TheSOARProgramatEachSchool
Bothschools DesertGroveonly ForestGlenonly
Growth Designteamscreatedsetoflessons Teachersparticipatedin Teachersparticipatedin
mindset tointroducegrowthmindsetto half-daytrainingfocused trainingfocusedon
students. ongrowthmindset. implementingadvisory
Ontheseconddayof lessons(including
school,teacherstaughta lessonsongrowth
sequentialsetoflessons mindset)
ongrowthmindsetfor Teacherstaughtgrowth
7 everyperiodoftheday. mindsetlessonsaspartof
1
0 Teacherswereencouraged theiradvisoryperiod.
2
r topromotegrowth
e
b mindsetwithintheir
o
ct classrooms.
O
6 Problem- Designteamscreatedastep-by-step Thedesignteamintroduced Thedesignteamintroduced
1
2 solving problem-solvingprocess. theproblem-solving theproblem-solving
1 processtotheirteachers processtoteachersand
3:
1 throughaprofessional studentsasoneofthe
at developmentsession. advisorylessons.
y] Designteamscreatedabehavioral Teacherswereaskedto Therewasnoexpectation
ar reflectionformtoencourage integratetheprocessinto thatteachersincorporate
r
b problem-solvingtoaddressstudent anacademiclessonof theprocessintotheir
Li
y misbehavior. theirchoosingduringa contentclasses.
sit Teacherswereencouragedtousethe two-weektimeperiod.
er behavioralreflectionformrather
v
ni thanwritingdisciplinereferrals,
U buttherewasnoformal
rbilt euxsepethcteatfioornmt.hatteachershadto
e
d
n Goalsetting Thedesignteamcreatedstudent Theadministration Advisoryperiodfocusedon
a
V reflectionformsthatfocusedon extendedthehomeroom thisgrade-tracking
[
y goalsettingaroundgrades. periodforanextra processeverythree
d b Schoolscreatedtimeeverythree 20mineverythreeweeks weeks.
e weeks(whenstudentsreceived forstudentstocomplete Teacherswereaskedto
d
a progressreportsorreportcards) grade-trackingforms. makecallshometo
o
nl forclassestocompletethesegrade parentsofstudentsin
w
trackingforms. theiradvisorytodiscuss
o
D students’gradesand
goals.
the teachers on the design team were analyzed to understand the program as it was designed,
theirmethodsofintroducingSOARandtrainingthefaculty,andthegoalsofeachofthespecific
practices.
Interviewswereaudiorecorded,transcribedverbatim,andthenanalyzedwiththeassistance
ofthequalitativedataanalysissoftware,NVivo.Thecodingframeworkusedtoanalyzethetran-
scripts was developed through a multistage iterative process. Members of the research team
worked first individually and then in small groups to develop a baseline framework of codes
to capture specific elements around program implementation. These elements included teacher
616 M.RUBIN,S.KEMPERPATRICK,ANDE.B.GOLDRING
practices,supportsreceived,andfeedbackregardingtheirexperiencesofimplementingSOAR.
Afterdevelopingtheinitialsetofcodes,researchersindependentlyreadasubsetoftranscriptsand
codedthemaccordingtothelistdeveloped,whilealsoaddingcodesasthemesemergedfromthe
data.Wethenmet,comparedourcoding,clarifieddiscrepancies,anddiscussedemergentcodes.
Thisprocessledtotherevisionofthecodingframework.Wethenchoseanothersetoftranscripts
tocodeandrepeatedtheprocessofapplication,additions,andcomparison.Afterthissmallgroup
process,thisrefinedcodingschemawasbroughttoalargergroupofresearchers.Theentireteam
thenengagedinaprocesssimilartothatoutlinedaboveusingtherevisedframework.Werepeated
thisprocessanadditionalthreetimestorefinetheframeworkandachieveagreementamongall
membersoftheteam.Membersoftheresearchteamwereassignedtranscriptstocodeaccording
17 tothemasterframeworkthatemergedfromtheprocess.
0
2 Forthispaper,wedrewonanalyticcodescapturingteachers’understandingoftheprogram,
r
e their perceived capacity to implement program practices, the training received, and the degree
b
o
ct towhichteachersreportedimplementingspecificprogrampracticesintheirclassesandregular
O
teachingroutines.Wealsodrewuponcodescapturingteachers’feedbackonpracticestheywere
6
1 askedtoimplement,andtheirbeliefsaboutwhethertheprogramwouldbeeffective.Wefirstread
2
1 withincodesbyschoolandthencomparedthecodesacrossthetwoschoolstoidentifyareasof
3:
1 commonality and divergence. We identified both unique and similar characteristics of program
at implementation between the schools, and we identified themes related to particular practices,
]
ry levelsofinitialandongoingadoption,capacity,training,andperspectivesonimplementation.
a
r
b
Li
y
sit RESULTS
r
e
v
ni TheoverarchinggoaloftheSOARprogramwastoincreasestudentownershipandresponsibility
U
bilt fporracthtieciersl.eaWrneinlegv.eTrahgoeugthhetsheessicmhoiloalrsitdieifsfearnedddiniftfheereirnacpepsrtooaecxhaems,itnheeyvsahriaarteiocneritnaitnhceoinmcpepletmsaennd-
r
e
d tationofSOARpracticeswithinandbetweenschools.Becausecapacityiskeytothesuccessful
n
Va implementationandongoingdeliveryofnewprograms,wefocusontwooverarchingfindingsthat
y [ emergedfromouranalysisofinitialimplementationofSOAR:(a)highlystructuredpractices,al-
b
d thoughtheywerequicklyadopted,oftenlimitedteachers’deeperengagementwithpractices;and
de (b)alignmentbetweenSOARandteachers’preexistingpracticesandbeliefsincreasedthelikeli-
a
o hoodoftheirinitialadoptionbutdidlittletopromoteschoolwideculturechange.Takentogether,
nl
w thesefindingsaboutprogramstructureandalignmentdemonstratethatalthougheachprogram’s
o
D characteristicsmayhaveencouragedinitialadoptionofnewprogrampractices(animportantfirst
step in achieving scale), they did not foster sufficient understanding of and ownership over the
programsasawholeforthemtobediffusedintoteachers’dailypracticeandimpacttheschools’
cultures.
CharacteristicsofQuicklyAdoptedPractices
Datasuggestthatanumberofprogramcharacteristics,includingthedegreeofprescriptionand
whethertimewasallottedforteacherstoimplementpractices,influencedthelevelsofadoption.
Whenteachersweretaskedwithdevelopingtheirownlessonsaroundmoreabstractconceptsof
DILEMMASOFPROGRAMIMPLEMENTATION 617
the program, they often struggled to implement those components of the program. Conversely,
whenpracticesweremorestructured,whetherduetoincreasedprescriptionorbecausetimewas
formally allotted to implementing them, they were adopted more consistently. Still, there were
drawbackstothishighdegreeofstructure,suchasalackofownershiporaninabilityofteachers
toinfusesimilarpracticesandprogramcomponentswithintheirownlessons.
Prescription
Prescribedpractices,suchasscriptedlessonsorworksheets,requiredlittletonobaselineca-
7
1 pacityforteacherstoimplement.Asaresult,acrossbothschools,teachersreportedthatpractices
0
2 thatwereprescribed,especiallywhenboundedintimeandspace,wereimplementedmorefully.
r
be Thedesignteamswereabletoprovidebasicintroductionstosuchpracticesduringinitialtrain-
o
ct ingsandthroughe-mail,andteacherswerethenabletoimplementthemintheirclasses.Desert
O
6 Grove’s design team introduced practices that were highly prescribed, but flexible. Some pro-
1 gramcomponentsofferedlittleroomforfreedomofinterpretation,whileothersprovidedteach-
2
1 erssignificantautonomyforthemtodevelopindependently.Gradetrackingwasthemosthighly
3:
1 prescribed practice teachers were asked to introduce, and it was also the practice that teachers
] at discussedimplementingmostuniformlyandfrequently.Asconceivedbythedesignteamtoen-
y
r couragegoal-setting,gradetrackingsimplyrequiredteacherstodistributeaworksheettostudents
a
r
b inwhichtheychartedtheirgradesandthenrespondedtoreflectivequestions.Incontrast,problem-
Li
y solvingandgrowthmindsetpracticeswereconsideredmoreabstractandcomplexconcepts,and
sit the design team gave teachers greater freedom in deciding how to introduce these concepts in
r
e theircontentclasses.Asoneteacherdescribed,“[thedesignteam]saidjustdoaproblem-solving
v
ni lesson and go for it, and they gave us some autonomy with it and said go do it and make sure
U
rbilt itteamme’estsprtohbelepmro-bsolelmvi-nsgolpvrioncgesgsuiindteolintheesi.”rlWeshsoenresa,sotshoemreintteearvchieewrsedhatdeaicnhceorrsproerpaoterdtedthtehadtetshigeny
e
d hadnotyetusedtheproblem-solvingprocess,orthattheydidnotusetheparticularstepsgiven
n
a
V tothembythedesignteam.
[
y Meanwhile, almost all of Forest Glen’s SOAR practices took the form of highly prescribed
b
d lessonsdeliveredduringtheweeklyadvisoryperiod.Teachersrepeatedlyreferredtotheimple-
e
d mentationofSOARlessonsas“easy”or“smooth.”Thelessonswerehighlyprescribed,andthe
a
nlo designteamprovidedallofthematerialsnecessaryforimplementation.Asoneteacherexplained,
w “Ithinkitgoesbackto …thelessonsbeingeasytofollow …there’saPowerPointandthenthe
o
D handoutsareprovidedforus.Soit’sjustamatterofdoingthestepsthatthey’vegivenyou,soit’s
easytoimplement.”Someteacherssawthisprescriptionasespeciallyhelpfulintheearlystages
ofimplementinganewprogram.Forexample,oneteachernoted,
Sincethisisthefirsttimewe’redoingthis,I’mnotsureit’snecessarilyabadthing.Weneedtostartat
somepoint.Somyassumptionisthatinthefuturewewillbeabletohavemorelibertyinintroducing
[SOARconcepts]orusingsomeextraresourcesoranythinglikethat.Butsofar,Imean,Idon’thave
aproblemwithfollowingwhattheysendme.Butit’sstructured …it’sscripted,basically.
Although prescription may be an effective initial step in the implementation process, it has
shortcomingsaswell.NotallteachersatForestGlenappreciatedthescriptedlessons,andsome